tv U.S. Senate CSPAN May 11, 2011 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
>> thank you. again, i want to thank the ranking member on the matter we've worked on a bipartisan basis and even the issues we disagree, we work on a bipartisan basis, and i think this amendment certainly is another one that reflects that. on this, we would disagree, and we are here adding additional funds to our ground pace mid
course defense system used in both alaska and california. this is the only system that protects the united states from the threat of long range ballistic missiles. it is the only one we have for all things in development, for the phase adaptive approach the president rolled out -- >> gentleman, please suspend. >> yes. [inaudible conversations] >> would you please call up your amendment? >> with that, there's a second degree amendment to ms. sanchez's amendment. >> will the clerk please distribute that? without objection, reading of the amendment is dispensed with. pass out the amendment.
[inaudible conversations] gentleman recognized to explain his second degree amendment. >> the amendment provided by ms. sanchez does reduce the amount that is available for the ground base defense system and takes funds and makes them available for the national guard equipment and procurement. while we disagree, we agree with the transfer of the funds to the procurement. this sustains ms. sanchez's increase, but utilizes a different source of funding to accomplish that. it uses it from the enhanced magnitude of the reconnaissance defense system.
with that, i yield back. >> gentlelady from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so my original amendment, my amendment, would reallocate the increase of the $100 million that was put in the mark and would put it into national guard and reserve equipment. this is a bipartisan committee. we worked hard together over the years. i've been on this subcommittee 13 of my 15 years in this congress and on this committee. what happens with this $100 million that is in the ground based mid based defense system being put in it money that actually the agency is saying he
does not need, okay? general riley was here yesterday on the hill, also in front of our committee and gave testimony. he can think of a lot of other places to put this $100 million. the reality is that we have a situation on our hands where the last two flight tests of the gmd system and in december of 2010 failed to achieve intercept, and these flight test failures have delayed work on gbif upgrades on stockpile reliability and gbi manufacturing, so the course that mba and general riley have taken is basically that we must fly before we buy.
their system is to test to ensure that we do not have these when we do the tests. the root cause of flight teases fame euros including malfunctions must be resolved before upgrades in manufacturing activities can move forward, and mta is on track to conduct is very rigorous analysis before it attempts another flight intercept. rigorous analysis without unnecessarily rushing to test again remains extremely important to maximize the chances for success and to make smart investments. this is a difficult technology. seven out of 15gmd tests failed since 1999, so pressing mba to accelerate their analysis and testing or to move forward on
acquisition activities now will only increase the potential risk in the potential cost. the line for gbi production remains warm until fiscal year 16. there's no need to rush to production. in fact, when i asked general o'riley, yesterday, well, what would you use the $100 million on? he said, you know, it would just be along the fringes, maybe some fiberoptic increase or better fiberoptics, but in his opinion this $100 million could better be used if we get, if you will, no pun intended, get a better bang for the buck by using that somewhere else, so we have enough money in fiscal year appropriation, and we have enough money in fiscal year 12 appropriations. in fact, one of the things that the general said was that if we
can get this right, and we have seen what tests are needed and what the program is, if they can get this right, they will be coming back in fiscal year 13 and asking for more money to actually do the production, so he basically said why don't you take that money now and use it on other things again that we get a better bang for the buck out of, and with the understanding that when we are ready, and he believes we will be ready in another year, he will come back and ask for the money he needs to get this under way. so we've already gone through that all, and we've taken a look at icbms as providing we have
30gbis in alaska and at vanderberg california and radars in california, alaska, greenland, and the u.k., and they contribute to our homeland defense. they are deployed at sea. >> the time expired. >> they are on cruisers. i do need more time if you don't mind. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. reyes for five minutes. >> thank you. i'd like to yield to my colleague so she can finish her statement. >> thank you. they are deployed at sea on destroyers, cruisers, in japan in the form of sea-based expand radar. this administration is investing in the phase adaptive approach, and it will contribute to homeland defense by the year 2020, so we have enough, and the head of the agency is saying he's got enough, we can't put
anymore to make this go faster, so we would like too take that -- to take that $100 million to use it where we do need it right now. the national guard and reserve equipment account has been created and funded by the congress every year since fiscal year 2004, and the purpose for the account is to provide the army national guard, the air national guard and reserve components of army, navy, marine corp. access funding to meet additional equipment needs that are not provided in the base budget request while overall funding levels for national guard and reserve forces have increased substantially since 2004, the additional funding provided through this account has been a critical resource for the reserves to maintain and to improve combat readiness, and we all know where these troops have been. they have been in combat. this year, the committee received testimony on the importance of this account from
reserve component senior leaders including general jackson schultz of the army reserve, the air force reserve, and major general raymond carpenter of the national guard. all stated thissing the was an absolute essential element to their ability to preserve combat readiness. chairman proposed fiscal year 2012 national defense authorization agent provides $225 million for that account. by comparison in fiscal year 2010 and 2011, the amount was $850 million. adding this additional funding to this account ensures that all of our reserve components can continue to rebuild their combat readiness and capability that has been worn down by ten years
of war in iraq and afghanistan. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. >> i yield back. >> gentleman yields back his time. the chair now recognizes gentleman from florida, mr. miller, for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman, i yield my time to mr. turner. >> thank you. the context of this amendment must be considered within the past administration cuts to this program. i absolutely agree with the ranking member that the problems with the program must be resolved. they can't be resolved unless we focus on the program providing additional funding. the administration continually cut the program in the past budget request slashed by $445 million in 2010, $185 million in this year's budget request
reduction, and the outyear spending is a billion dollars less than projected a year ago. we're only restoring $100 million. i appreciate the ranking member's statement of general saying there's a bunch of other places to put the money, but the ranking members amendment doesn't put it someplace else, but puts it in the national guard, and we support that, and that's why the second amendment was offered. the restoring the $100 million back to the program and honoring the ranking members very valid statement of where the money would go in support of our national guard is why the second amendment is offered. it accomplishes both. it restores a portion, only a portion of the reduction that the administration has made to the gmd program.
again, the only program that protects the homeland, the mainland of the united states while also then honoring the rank member's desire to support the national guard account. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. i recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews for five minutes. >> thank you. i strongly support ms. sanchez's amendment, and i oppose the second degree amendment to it. this -- these two votes or this vote poses for us a matter of yiewn namety and a very important choice on achieving something we apparently unanimously want. everybody here wants more equipment available for our guard and reserve with very good reason. the guard and reserve are deployed for natural disasters.
i believe 45% of our force in iraq and afghanistan are come priced -- comprised of guard and reserve unites. they are overstressed and under appreciated. both amendments try to correct that situation which is why i think there's virtual agreement we should add to this account. i think the difference is here in the committee. we would purport to take the $100 million from an account that the administration didn't ask for, but the military leadership of the gmd program didn't ask for. i think the reason they didn't ask for it as pointed out is that seven of the 15 tests since 1999 of that system have
failed. general o'reilly thinks he can work out those kings, but the -- kinks, but the money added to this is sur puffer louse to his efforts. we have to do what we can do to deal with the threat to the homeland. that's why the adaptive approach is being pursued by the administration because the technology on which it is based as worked whether it's platforms out at sea or the ground based platforms in alaska or california. this is reliable. we're saying that a system that the general says that hasn't worked, isn't ready, money hasn't been asked for, that's where the money should come from. the majority takes a very
different view. they would take the $100 million from the enhanced medium altitude reconnaissance and surveillance system. these are airplanes that gather intelligence about hot spots on the ground. these are the aircraft made available to give us informational superiority over a battle space the next time. we have to send special forces into a tough situation to achieve a national security objective for the country. the services asked for 18 of these planes. the majority's mark gives them four, and if this amendment is adopted, the four shrinks essentially to zero so here's the choice -- everyone says correctly they want this equipment for the guard and the reserve. everybody agrees the money has to come from somewhere. we say the $100 million should
come from a system that's not proven, that's is not current with our present efforts, and has in its place a phased adaptive approach based on technology that is working and has worked. the majority says that that $100 million should come from reconnaissance and intelligence aircraft which the military values so much they've asked for 18 of those planes in this budget, so do you favor intelligence gathering that the military says it needs or an unproven system that has a better backup that the military says it doesn't need? that's the question. i think the answer is self-evident. i think we should defeat the second degree amendment and adopt ms. sanchez's amendment and fund these guard and reserve units with the $1-rbgs 1 #* --
$100 million. >> the gentleman yields back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i tried to figure out who is doing what to who on this thing. had either side led with the national guard, it might have more credibility. it gets tossed here in gratuitously to argue about the broader issue on keeping the missile system or the reconnaissance. i want to ask my colleague from ohio, i don't know who the champion of ariel systems should be, but zuz this system, mr. turner, follow your jurisdiction? can you tell us what impact? >> let's rewind for a moment on this. the reduction that we're
proposing, again both those doesn't fall under this subcommittee. >> okay. >> it's based upon a recommendation. in fact, the chairman's mark for that program already has a reduction. this just takes additional moneys from it that are then consistent with the gao recommendation for the reduction. the funds that we preserve trying to take out of -- >> okay, reclaiming my time. this is one of those classic -- i hate this stuff. we come here, have subcommittees that chew this stuff up one side down the other, and then we come in here, throw these $100 million around with competing claims by both sides which dependenting on who you listened to last can be the most persuasive. again, the national guard is thrown in as gray gratuitously.
at this stage, i'm looking for additional information, but i don't know how to vote on this thing, but it's frustrating for both sides to talk the way you talk and not have the facts. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes ranking member smith for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think i can help out. first of all, national guard stuff, taking care of the amendment, you know, the money is going to go to those purposes, the $100 million is put into that as well as the primary amendment. the two areas in dispute in the secondary amendment are first of all the $100 billion for the missile defense system, and the problem with the debate here are you for or against it? that's not the point. as explained clearly, given where the ground base missile defense system is at right now, what the general in charge of implementing the program is telling you is that in this coming fiscal year that this
bill covers, fiscal year 2012, he cannot spend $100 billion -- >> will the gentleman yield? >> just getting started here. i'll yield in a second. >> all right. >> he cannot spend that money because the program is not ready for it. there is money for the program. it's not being eliminated in any way. we are forcing them to spend $100 million which apparently they have to get very creative about where to spend it on this program because they reached the determination that they can't effectively spend it because the program is not ready for it to be spent, but to make the philosophical point that the majority is more supportive of the ground based missile defense, we'll throw the money at them any way and watch them spend it. i don't think that's intelligent. where the money is coming from is coming from a program to build new c-12 aircrafts which are isr platforms, intelligence
surveillance and reconnaissance. this program has had trouble. the original program cut $417 million autoof the program taking it down i heard from 12, mr. andrews said 18, but i heard from 12 planes down to four, okay? that's an initial rate production number more in keeping with what they they their capabilities are. we are taking another $100 million out of it eliminating the program basically. now, if you support the secondary amendment, you take $100 million, give it to a program that can't spend it effectively given where the program is at for fiscal year 2012, and you take the money away from a program where we could build four isr platforms, csr aircraft, leave $20 million there again which they have to figure out what to do with because they are not building
planes anymore. this secondary amendment is worse than the original mark in terms of where it takes the money from and what it leaves. you have $120 million spent on nothing that's going to help national security, and now i'm happy to yield to mr. turner. >> thank you. with all do respect, there has a lot of statements made -- >> i hate it when people start with that sentence. it makes it apparent you don't think that much is do. >> it is not accurate for us to make a decision that this is based on a statement that the general never made. he did not say i do not need the $100 million or i can't spend it. >> oh, i'm sure he can spend it. >> there's statements made in the deliberations as if this $100 million is unnecessary and that the general doesn't want it. that's not true. this program was whacked by $185
million. it is a program that is thee only one protecting the homeland of the united states. it is not a troubled program in development. it is deployed. now, it is a program that is having difficulty, there's the needs for the additional funds. there's errors in testing that lead us to believe that the general in front of our committee on -- >> can i ask a question? we are funding it even within -- we're not zeroing the program out, is that not correct? >> the programs are necessary to ensure ce with overcome -- >> we are funding? >> absolutely. >> how much? >> the aggregate number is -- looking here on this -- let's defer to carey. >> $1.2 billion in the mark funds act. . >> adding $100 million to that? >> yes, sir. >> all right. secondly, the other item where
there's debate on the cutting of the amarss. there's the support of the chairs on this. it's a program that gao recommended a reduction of $526 million -- >> i'll take my time back saying $1.2 billion for a program that's having trouble is more than enough. >> i also have a question. how much was cut from this program, i think it was the year before last? >> sir, in fiscal year 2010, the budget ask was reduced by $445 million. >> which left how much? >> i do not have that number in my information right before me right now. >> was $1.5 billion cut from missile sieves, $200 million plus from this particular program? >> in fiscal year 2010, it was
reduced by $445 million. in fiscal year 2012, this year's budget request, reduces the program by $185 million from the fy11 request. >> okay, but the total missile defense couple years, i think it was cut $1.5 billion? >> $1.2 billion the entire program was cut previously. >> yeah. this just gets it back up to kind of what was needed a couple years ago to deploy these missiles in california and alaska? was that correct? >> this would add -- >> i think, mr. chairman, if the gentleman yields for a second? >> sure. >> i think what is needed is a debatable question. that's not an appropriate question for staff, and that's what we're debating. it's reduced from what it was, but what is needed. it's not something staff can
answer, but -- >> right. what i was trying to get was the numbers what it was and what it was reduced and what we're trying to get it back to. >> mr. chairman? may i, if you please? >> yes. >> will you yield? i hope, and i don't believe that i said that general o'riley said he couldn't spend the money. what i said when i explained the situation was he said i'll find a place to spend it on things on the edges on the fringes, but it's not the biggest bang for the buck for the money. he said i have enough to do what we need to do and giving me that $100 million is not going to move the part that we need to move, the system testing that we need to move in order to construct more, and what he said was when i get through this phase this year, loretta, i will
come back, and i will ask you for more money to build the thing, but first i need to make sure that it works, and there are better places to put the money. >> thank you. reclaiming me time. >> that's what the general said. >> mr.-- recognize now the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield to mr. turner. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman, and i appreciate you giving us construct of really where we are on this. let's do a review. i don't have an amendment to increase missile defense spending by $100 million. what we have is an amendment to reduce it. what we provided was a secondary amendment to stop the reduction. there should not be a reduction in missile defense spending. i can't respond to the private
conversation with the general she had, but i can only respond to what general o'riley said in testimony in front of the subcommittee, and he testified there was a need for more ground based intercepters as a result of recent flight test failures. there was a need for additional tests because there were failures in the system that are fairly critical concerns we have this system, portions of it deployed to protect the continental united states. remember, this is our only system protecting the united states from icbm attack. there's a portion of the system in which a difficulty, not the ones in the ground, but that is in development that has arisen for the follow on program. we need to get that resolved so that we can go back to full confidence in the system as it's being developed and full confidence in our ability to protect the continental united states. we don't have an amendment to
projecting over the next ten-year period, they are looking at spending $1 billion less on this program that again is our only one that protects -- if you are for missile defense, you have to be for retaining these funds. it is our only option for protecting the united states at this point. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. and the chair now recognized the gentlelady. >> thank you, i yield to my colleague miss sanchez. >> i thank my colleague from san diego. generally when the administration gives us a budget, sometimes they put less than what they really want in the program. because they know that the congress has favorites and that we will put the money in and
then the congress will be the one who pluses up the budget not on the administration. we all know here if you've been on the committee for a while that that happens. but it's very rare for someone to come after the administration budgets has come out and the congress has plussed up the account is rare for someone to come and say we really don't need that money, please use it in other places. but yesterday at 4 p.m., general o'reilly was walking the halls of congress. and desperately looking to come and talk to the members of the subcommittee. we definitely said we should be using this money in a different way. >> would the gentlelady yield?
did he ask to go to the national guard? >> he had recommendations. one was them was the pstd program. if you have a problem with it going to the national guard, we would agree to put it in that other problem, which is under his control, mr. turner. >> would the gentlelady yield? >> yes. >> were you aware he was on the hill lobbying for a change yesterday? >> no. i was aware that he was coming and talking about what his needs were. >> that's a were fine line, i think, from lobbying the hill on a bill we were marking up. >> i think that's priorities -- he was not lobbying. he was making us understand what priorities there were over in the department. >> that is a very fine line. i mean that's what many lobbyist would say they do every day.
i think it's very important that we are very accurate on what's being said about that. because that as i understand it, that could be in violation of the law. >> well, i would not say he was lobbying me. i would say he came over to discuss what was not in the budget. >> was it a change he wanted in the bill? >> no, sir. it was not a change he wanted in the bill. >> would the gentlelady yield? >> yes. >> i would just ask the gentlelady, because i've never known our committees to be able to deal with private conversations for the exact reason we see with the chairman, there's a differentiation of lobbying, does he have a testimony that the gentleman has made that we can read and look at to make sure there's no differentiation in interpretation of what the
general might have said that you could present to us? >> i'll yield to the ranking member for a moment. >> thank you, this is a worthy discussion again. i want to get back to the issue if i could just quickly. the point is it's not any big secret who o'reilly was. this is $100 million, as mr. turner said, it was added back in to what the president requested. that was the issue that i would like to focus on. when you get into the numbers of how much money last year and the year before. makes an issue if we are going to save money. two or three years we said we project to spend the amount of money that we have to spend that amount of money. >> would you yield? >> my only point, i'll conclude with the and stop talking, as the program evolves, sometimes it doesn't hit the milestones we expect it to and can no longer effectively spend the money. if we can't, we ought to be smart. that's why the president's request was $100 million less
than what we're asking for. i'll yield back to miss davis. it's her time. >> would the gentlelady yield? >> miss davis? >> yes? >> i come back to my initial question. do we have a single document or letter or official testimony as to what the general says? because it is very confusing. >> absolutely. i will tell you that the official document for the request is the president's budget. that is the request where he asks for $100 million less. >> i meant anything official that the general gave. >> well, the general did come before a committee with the president's budget. >> but you don't have any -- >> gentlelady's time has expired. >> could someone get me some time? >> chair now recognized gentleman from california for five minutes. >> it's with some trepidation that i march into this field. i do recall as a member of this committee discussions that took place, some of that discussion i
should not and will not discuss here. but my recollection is that given the two failures which are widely known and reported, not recently, but in formal hearings, said that he is redesigning this program to address the underlying problem with the system. and that would take some time to do and to work through those problems that were known to exist and that instead of spending money on new hardware, they were going through a process step by step so that they could analyze the deficiencies in the program and develop a solution to the programs. and as i recall, that would take a year, perhaps a little longer to do. and i think that's why this budget was in the president's
proposal reduced. now given that there's no reason to augment this $100 million. because it doesn't meet the needs of the program as i understood his explanation to the committee. we know the national guard needs money. this is about choices. the military and the president have made a choice as to how to spend money and we're suggesting that instead of adding more money that they believe is unnecessary, we put that money where we believe it is necessary, the national guard. the secondary amendment, i think, is ill conceived, and my recollection, it does take money away from those assets that have been requested by the military and are a essential part of what was the recent success that is the bin laden situation. so i would suggest that we put the secondary amendment down that we pass the initial
amendment, and get on because this ground has been rather thoroughly plowed. >> gentleman yields back. the chair now recognized the gentleman from virginia, mr. forbes, for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, the reason that it's so important for us to have testimony and to rely on documents is because it's fine for anyone to talk to us privately. we can come in and say this is our opinion from that assessment. but the reason that we rely on the testimony is because often times it is confusing. unless we can ask them questions and follow up and see what they actually mean and said. by not having that capability, and by bringing in a generals comments, it runs through filters that could be misinterpreted and not have the facts before the committee. that's why as for the documentation, mr. turner has heard that testimony, met with the individuals, at this time,
i'd like to yield to him for any comments that he might have. >> thank you, i want to agree with mr. forbes. it shuts down all of the detail on all of the issues if we say we had a private conversation with the general that says don't do this. because it's impossible for us to debate a private conversation. i do know that what was said in the testimony in front of our committee that i have now, a couple of exerts in front of us. so general o'reilly says right there it indicate that is we four gbis that we haven't accounted to before. so he's not funded them. for fiscal year '11 and '12, i'm diverting that funding to fix the problem, i'm using funding that was reserved for the flight test, which we will have to move to another year. he wouldn't have to make the changes from program to program if we can give them the correct
amount of money. the programs are under funded. this program is under funded. with respect to the president's budget, we shouldn't move money. then every member that says we should go back -- >> i did not say that. >> all right. >> i did not say that. i would never imply that. i nearly said if you want to know what the administration's position is, since that's what we were debating, administration position was $485, or $100 million less than what you authorized. i would never make that statement. >> okay. all right. it certainly wouldn't be a basis for us, because the whole bill is based on that. our whole bill is based upon congressional action. in this action, we all want to support missile defense. it is under funded, it needs to be funded, we have a source for the funding, we can satisfy both sides here, ranking member gets the funding for the national guard, and we get the funding for missile defense, we should support the secondary amendment to the ranking members amendment. with that, i yield back.
>> any others wish to debate this issue? gentleman from new york is recognized, mr. gibson, for five minutes. >> i recommend we delay a vote on this. i think the testimony from the general is material at least to my decision on the vote. i'd like to have something on the record. further more, i've had staff come up moments ago, telling me with regard to the c-12 variant, there's protest. i haven't heard that from the subcommittee chair, that's not submitted for the record. i don't think we have enough on the record for any kind of positive vote on this. >> would the gentleman yield? obviously we have the -- testimony that has occurred -- would the gentleman yield? >> i field. >> our subcommittee spent a significant amount of time in public hearings putting this
together. as all of the subcommittees did. we can't take each item for them to review testimony and report that is have been available through the whole process. this is important for us to move forward. it would obviously delay the whole bill. the whole process is based on the active participation. these are programs -- the secondary amendment has the support of the chair, and has the support of the subcommittee chairs and has my support. we should under take the secondary amendment. >> i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. is there further debate on the amendment? the question -- the question is on the second degree amendment to the pending amendment by mr. sanchez, all of those in favor will say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed no. >> no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. recorded vote has been request requested.
we're about now to the point where we're going to fall for votes. and it might be a good time for us to break. calm down a little bit. and we will go over and vote and take a dinner break and we will reconvene at 7:15. and then we're about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, -- about six or seven amendments more to go to finish up strategic forces. so we will reconvene at 7:15, the committee or the call of chair, the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> the armed services committee is working on the strategic forces section of the defense program bill. members have been marking up the legislation, making line by line changing all day, breaking for votes on the house floor.
the house taking a handful of votes starting shortly on the floor. we'll have more live coverage when the committee gavels back in at 7:15 eastern. part of the markup from earlier today, dealing with the nuclear weapons s.t.a.r.t. treaty. they introduced an amendment deal, the treaty which was ratified in the u.s. in december 2010. again, we will be back here live when the committee returns, expected at about 7:15 eastern this evening. >> i would like to introduce an amendment that i believe is at your desk. >> will the clerk please distribute the amendment, number 142? would objection reading in the amendment will be dispensed with.
gentleman is recognized to explain the amendment. >> thank you, it's part of the new s.t.a.r.t. action, introduced last year and cosponsored by gentleman mckeon, mr. turner, and myself. it would do three things, first freeze funding for new s.t.a.r.t. reductions if programmed nuclear modernization does not proceed, two, prohibits cuts to our hedge stockpile under certain technical milestones are met, and require congress to involved in decisions to cut the forces deployed and nondeployed. in the first place, the
amendment would hold this and future administration accountable to the debates last year. in particular, the grand bargain, quote unquote, is that treaty ratification would proceed if the administration agreed to a much needed ten-year nuclear modernization program. in this regard, less than two months ago, every single member, all 16 members of the strategic forces subcommittee of both parties wrote a letter to chairman -- budget chairman paul ryan, urging the corporation of this commitment. with that bipartisan support, the ryan budget, now the house budget, did indeed commit full funding for weapons modernization. the difficulty with the bargain that the senate struck with the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is that congress cannot appropriate money in advance for a ten-year period. so we are dependent upon the good faith and continued commitment of the executive branch, including future
executives not yet elected. the memory of last year's debate and the need for modernization may or may not last a full ten years. so we need mechanisms to influence the future through the life of this treaty or even beyond to make sure promises are kept. now this provision is carefully crafted to avoid producing a treaty default. however, it would make implementation more cumbersome and thus provide incentives to keep up the modernization. as we proceed, it becomes all the more important that the posture remains coherent and deterrent remains credible. as they noted in a november report to congress, the bill paying for modernization has to be paid even in difficult economic conditions. and i hope we would all agree with that. so we must now move to create what tom, the head of the national nuclear security administration, has called a
sustainable deterrent. and we don't have that yet. despite the administration's pledge of just a few months ago to embark on the ten-year program and for the funding request along with that for fiscal year 12, we're going to have to watch this for ten full years. so we have only just begun on this. this amendment would also do a couple other things. it would put the breaks on any efforts by this administration to race down a road to further and what i think would be ill advised cuts in our nuclear weapons in the future that don't include interaction of congress. recent statements by administration officials, including national security advisor donlan have given rise for concern. to do this without congress being involved, whether the
senate or the house, i don't think it's a good idea. another limitation is to preclude premature cuts to the stockpile. once again this is something that comments have been made that cause concern. so we -- based on reports and testimony, if we were to cut our nondeployed hedge stockpile before the modernization was done, -- excuse me -- should not be done until we have new facilities that are up and running, quote, unquote. and these are new plutonium and uranium facilities. according to the nnsa, these are needed to meet the cry -- criteria for the administration's own nuclear posture review. so the second part of this amendment would prohibit cuts to the nondeployed hedge stockpile
until the two important facilities are indeed up and running, fully operational. that may not take take -- that y not be done until 2023 or 2024, but the seriousness of this require that is we remain vigilant to make sure that these important steps are taken between now and then. the last part of this administration would amend the u.s. code so that all future reductions would require the involvement of congress -- >> gentleman's time has expired. >> okay. i would urge adoption of the amendment. i yield back. >> if you'd like to be recognized, please raise your hands so we can get you down on the list. yield five minutes to gentleman from washington, mr. larsen. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and i speak in opposition to this amendment and ask my colleagues to oppose it. this amendment ties a president's hands now and into
the future on how to manage our nuclear arsenal at a time when we are finally see cooperation from other countries on nonproliferation. this amendment attempts to halt the retirement of any nuclear system under new s.t.a.r.t., and the retirement of nuclear systems under new s.t.a.r.t. is obviously one the two major portions of the treaty. so this amendment is an attempt to rewrite the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty through the defense authorization act. it is not an attempt to implement the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. this amendment also halts any action by the president on nondeployed nuclear weapons until such time the chemical and metal search and replacement is completed and operating. the national lab nuclear facility is producing 80 bits a year, and there's the capacity to run two simultaneous programs for the nuclear weapons. in other words, this amendment changes the rules for new s.t.a.r.t. implementation after
the game has already started. the executive branch has stated and has demonstrated in it's budget a commitment to nuclear complex modernization. a point recognized by the majority and the minority on the subcommittee on strategic forces earlier this year by our letters to the budget committee, and by the comment that is we've heard from the chairman and from the ranking member just a moment ago. to block new start, or to block nuclear strategy until some point long into the future, not only limits the military, but the practical options. this amendment halts new s.t.a.r.t. implementation. a treaty that has strong bipartisan support, and the senate approved in the spirit and letter of the constitutional of the united states. mr. chairman, we see governments around the world signing up to locate, secure, and destroy nuclear materials to keep the worst weapons out of the worst
hands. we see russia agreeing to commit to verification of dismantlement of it's strategic arsenal consistent with the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. if we start implementation, russia stops implementation. we are left with nuclear weapons above the threshold set in new s.t.a.r.t.. i'm asking the committee remembers to agree with me in opposing this amendment. this amendment changes the rules of the new start implementation, it changes the rules of the game that has started, it does more to put obstacles in the way, as encourage new s.t.a.r.t.. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. recognize the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm speaking in support of the amendment. i urge all of the members to support it. i would to thank chairman mckeon as a co-sponsor of the new s.t.a.r.t. implementation act from which this provision arises.
senator kyl is introduced the new s.t.a.r.t. implementation act on the senate side, i'm told, today. this, of course, does not rewrite the s.t.a.r.t. agreement. if you read the actual amendment, it says that it requires a certification by the secretary of defense and the secretary of energy that they are proceeding with the representations that they have made, the accomplishments in modernization that are the basis of what their assurances to the senate was in approving new s.t.a.r.t.. it does not hold up new s.t.a.r.t. at all. in fact, it supports the new s.t.a.r.t. implementation by saying we have to modernize our nuclear weapons facilities. it's based on the document the may 10th assessment on the nuclear security complex doesn't change the rules. it is the road map for this. and all this says is that the secretary of defense and energy have to certify this process is
going forward. new s.t.a.r.t. is based upon our going to lower numbers with the assumption that we are modernizing our facilities, that we are assuring we have safe, reliable, and weapon structure. the provisions ask we not have further reduction in the hedge stockpile, until we seed with the modernization of las alamos and oakridge. there's nothing to pose, it's the codification of the to-do list that the administration brought forward when it represented to the senate what the administration was going to do to ensure that new s.t.a.r.t. would not threaten our deterrent capability. since it is the president's own to-do list, it should not be at all difficulty for the president to comply. i think everyone who has
concerns with what would occur if we implemented new s.t.a.r.t., but did not under take modernization would support this. i thank the chairman for in. i support mr. lamborn's amendment. i encourage all members to do so. >> mr. chairman. yes. i'd like to speak. >> the gentlelady from california, ms. sanchez recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will be supporting mr. larsen with respect to this issue. i think, you know, if you look back at history even though there were agreements in place, specifically with russia and this topic, the fact of the matter is that, for example, in 1991 in the immediate after math of the cold war, then president george bush announced that the u.s. would dramatically reduce the arsenal of nuclear weapons
which led the soviet union to take the similar steps, increasing the united states security. even though it wasn't in the treaty, the fact that the president has the ability to work and to actually lower the amount of arsenal that we have to increase our security i think is an incredibly important tool that any president, whether it's republican or democrat or any other party has. george, that was h.w. bush. and george -- the george w. bush administration announced in 2004 that it planned to unilaterally reduce u.s. nuclear stockpile by nearly 50% by 2012. the reduction was actually achieved by december of 2007. five years earlier and again at a point which i believe made us safer. not less safe, because the
president had the ability to bring down the stockpile. and according to russian scholar, and former state member, russia strategic nuclear forces will shrink dramatically because moscow is retiring older systems faster than it is adding new weapons. i believe it's incredibly important tool that the president has that we have fixed something at the new start, but he has the ability -- or she if it's a woman president in the future -- to decide if by lowering the stockpile to make the united states safer, this is a good tool for them to have. i will be supporting mr. larsen's amendment. thank you. >> chair recognized mr. wittman
for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to yield to mr. lamborn. >> i thank the gentleman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. just in a quick response, if you'll look at the first page of the amendment, the numbers show that we've had massive reductions since the end of the cold war in the number of nuclear weapons held by the united states. specifically, from the high in 1967 we're down -- our nuclear stockpile is down 84%. so we have 16% of what we used to. 1/6th. and more than -- we've dropped 75% just from when the berlin wall fell in '89, and from '91 to 2009, the nonstrategic nuclear weapons have declined by 90%. we only have 10%. when you have the smaller numbers than we used to, the room for error is -- becomes
tighter. there's less room for error in my opinion. so far this or future administrations to bargain without the knock or agreement of congress on unilateral reductions becomes more of a problem. because we have a lot less room for error. so i think it's important to assert the role of congress in these kinds of important decisions. so that's what the third part of the amendment does. that's one reason why i would urge a yes vote on this amendment. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chair. i yield back. >> chair recognized ranking member mr. smith of washington for five minutes. >> thank you, i yield to the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen. >> thank you, mr. smith. and i just want to respond to comments made earlier about the certification process. my understanding from the reading on page 5 section -- or line 12, c1 on prohibition and
reduction of stockpile heads, the secretary of defense or energy may not obligate amounts appropriated or made available to the department of defense or energy to dismantle, retire, or eliminate any nondeployed strategic or nuclear weapon. until written certification. and then it goes through on pages -- page six, one through 22. to actually outline on subsection a, b, c, and d specific sections that have to occur, that must occur before the general provision can occur. in other words, this is not -- this provision is not something that says -- it's okay to move forward if you don't certify. it's a provision that says you have to finish the cmrr or you
have to have two laps, you have to have 80 a year, if you do not have those, then you cannot move forward on the actual implementation -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. and that's the way it reads. i'll yield for a question. >> yeah. >> mr. -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> i would yield. >> i'm sorry. it's mr. smith's time. >> the provision that you are reading does not apply to the provisions that affect the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. these are outside. they apply to the hedge portion of the stockpile which does not fall within it. that's why it has provisions that are not just affected by the certification process. those that are within new s.t.a.r.t. are -- can be affected and implemented soully based upon the certification. so it is a different section.
>> reclaiming my time and yielding again. >> i'm waiting for the yielding process to work it's way through. from one person to the next. well, i thank the gentleman for his comments on that. i still would note that we are attempting to change this amendment, attempting to change the rules of the game after it has started. it's simple as that. congress did have it say, it just didn't happen to be this chamber of congress with the new s.t.a.r.t.. it was the senate using the procedures under the u.s. constitution to have their debate to approve this by 2/3, it had a strong bipartisan support, and now folks, i think, want to come back and change the rules of the game after new s.t.a.r.t. or implementation, or almost before new s.t.a.r.t. implementation started. i don't think that's a good decision. we rush implementation, we don't move forward on new s.t.a.r.t.
implementation. i think we need to move forward and have debates on future treaties and when administrations decide to bring them up in the future. with that, i yield back to mr. smith. >> i yield my time back. thanks. >> gentleman, mr. franks recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i want to point out i don't think this is changing the rules, as it were. because the entire debate in the senate was predicated on the importance of nuclear modernization on the part of the united states. this was not an ancillary issue, this was a central consideration. and i believe that mr. kyl and others were concerned primarily at some of the disadvantaging that this might offer to us in new s.t.a.r.t. simply because strategic weapons were the primary weapons included in s.t.a.r.t.
tactical weapons were not addressed. we were certainly at an extreme disadvantage in tactical weapons with the russians. it's also true that our nuclear umbrella has to reach in more places and in a broader sense than the russians do. mr. chairman, i think that the senators on the republican side believe that it was important to have this nuclear mod -- modernization. the president gave his promise. i think for the sake of national security, we should maintain that. i should point out one more thing. if our friends who count on us for the nuclear umbrella have any reason to doubt that, they may proceed with some type of nuclear umbrella of their own. this is something that i think the friends on the democrat side might have read about, because it would be the antis sis of
trying to build down or prevent nuclearization. with that, mr. chairman, i would emphasize the nuclear modernization is one the thing that is we're needing on the american side because of some of the intrinsic disadvantages that new s.t.a.r.t. may place on us otherwise. i yield back. >> mr. heinrich from new mexico is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chair. i'll keep my comments short. there's been an insinuation that we should not trust this administration with the funding necessary to modernize our stockpile. i would point out that was hr1 that suggested that the very labs needed to modernize our stockpile be dramatically cut. 17% cut at los alamos, 11% at sandia, the very labs where the cmrr is going, and the life
extension programs will be implemented. i strongly support that modernization effort, i do not believe we should tie the administration's hands as this amendment clearly does. >> would the gentleman yield for a moment? >> i would yield to the gentlewoman from california. >> i would to clear up something that mr. franks just said. we spoke about the allies that we have. the nato strategic concept stated in november of 2010, the supreme guarantees the security of the allies, and i'm quote this is, the supreme guarantees is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the alliance, particularly those of the u.s., and the statement made no mention of the actual tactical nuclear weapons in europe. in the december 2008 report on the dod and nuclear weapons management which was chaired by
jane vestennier, it stated that the principal advocate now abstained. actually, nato coition is based on other shared values, including counterterrorism and cyber threats and partnering on missile defense and crisis management. so there's really this strategic assurance that we're actually moving away from that when we look at our allies with respect to tactical weapons. so i think it's important to clear up the statement that was made earlier. and i yield -- i return the time to the gentleman from new mexico. >> i would yield back, mr. chair. >> gentleman yields back. chairman from -- gentleman from new jersey recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, i would like to yield my time to mr. turner. >> thank you. mr. chairman, just to reiterate,
the -- mr. lamborn's amendment which i think is an excellent amendment, does not change the rules for new s.t.a.r.t. in fact, it codifies the to-do list that the president set forth in the representations to the senate that would be part of the implementation. the senate, of course, has the primary role in treaty negotiations and, you know, in approval. obviously, our role, is on implementation. this is purely an implementation provision and ensures that the modernization goes forward. it does not change the rules in any manner, and, in fact, codifies the rules. the other provisions that relate, specifically the issue of the hedge and modernization of the cmmrr and upf facilities are straight out of the nnsa plan. these are provisions that will, of course, make us safer and
they go straight to the issue of ensuring that we have a modernization as we go to lower numbers. we want to ensure that what we do have is safe and reliable. i'll yield back to -- >> gentleman yields back. any other further debate on the amendment. gentleman from texas. mr. thornberry is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i might take just a moment to try to put context in some of the discussions. not everybody lives and breathes nuclear weapons all the time. obviously the nuclear weapons were invented in 1945. we've used them twice to end the war in the pacific. since that time, the u.s. has always felt that a strong nuclear deterrent was a critical part, indeed probably the central pillar, of our nation's security. other countries have them now. we're not going to uninvent them.
we're not going to wish them away. the basics of how to build a nuclear weapon are widely available, unfortunately. our nuclear weapons were built to last about 15-20 years. they are, i believe, all past their designed life expectancy now. so what we're trying to figure out how to do is keep these very complex machines in absolutely tip-top shape if you'll excuse the expression to make sure they are safe to be around, reliable, they will work when we want them to, well passed their designed life. now any responsible person would say the way you check that is you test it. we can't test these things. it's like having a car out there for 40 or 50 years and replacing parts every once in a while and just being absolutely certain when you turn the key it's going to fire right off and work the way you want it to.
that is a very complicated business. and that's why so much money and time and effort has been spend with the folks at los alamos, and sandia to make sure that it turns right on. and that's the reason i would suggest that under the s.t.a.r.t. treaty where the russians and the united states on strategic weapons agree to come down to 1550, that's the reason that the senate insisted as a condition that we had the very best facilities and nuclear weapons infrastructure, because we are down so low that if there is a problem, it's going to a major problem. and could wipe out a huge portion of our deterrent. so it was, i believe, a condition of ratifying s.t.a.r.t. that this infrastructure be modernized and we got to make sure we keep that condition. that's the bottom line here.
it's not about this president, and i would say it's not about either party or congress. as a gentleman pointed out. there would be folks on both sides who try to backtrack on this. some of this infrastructure modernization is going to cost some money. but the point is that if we are going to have a deterrent that we can count on, we're going to have to have that infrastructure to inspect the weapons, make new parts, replace them, and sort of kind of maintenance to keep that car running. that's what the amendment does. it says we are going to do everything that we can in this body, afterall, we took a constitutional oath to defend the country, we're going to do everything that we can to make sure that condition is kept. and the only other point that i'd make is that i don't care, again, which party we're talking about. we're down to, understand s.t.a.r.t., 1550 weapons. i just printed off what wikipedia had, as far as the
number of nuclear weapons that other countries have. you have the united kingdom, france, china, india pakistan they estimate 100. i don't know what the real numbers are. as i say, you know my source. the point is that if we go lower than the s.t.a.r.t. levels, it's going to have major implications for whether our friends can count on us, nato and otherwise, whether other countries try to add more weapons so they can get on parity, as we get lower, the gap between us gets smaller, and it's enticing for them to get where we are. and the point that was made about if there's a problem with our stockpile, the lower we go, the more of our stockpile could be wiped out with a problem. so my view is that the gentleman's amendment makes sense. it helps make sure the central pillar stays strong and that the condition of ratifying new
s.t.a.r.t. to go down to these levels that nobody ever thought we'd get down to. 1550 weapons, the go down to the level that the conditions are actually kept regardless of who's president and regardless of who's in the congress. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. gentleman from california, mr. garmendi is recognized. >> thank you. this is an extremely important issue in many respects. obviously, we count on the nuclear weapons as a deterrent. the question is how much of a deterrent do you need? the number of weapons that are quite sufficient to destroy the world and the number of weapons that we have are sufficient for the task at hand. that is the deterrent task against any of those countries that you -- mr. thornberry, you listed having nuclear weapons. i think we have plenty. the problem here is twofold. first of all, the language in
this bill really prohibits the department of defense from doing anything with the nuclear what is that word you use here? oh the covered nuclear systems. well, my goodness, what are the covered nuclear systems? well, they include bombers, b-52 h series which we learned earlier today is rather hold baiting back to the, i think it was '66 as i recall. the b-2 bombers, nearly all of those missiles that are designed to carry nuclear weapons. and nuclear warheads and the rest. the point here is that this goes way, way beyond the nuclear weapons themselves and covers virtually anything that has to do with nuclear weapons. that's an enormously broad and,
i think, detrimental way in which to pose the question. i don't think any of us are suggesting that we go below what the s.t.a.r.t. treaty recommends. there maybe one weapon that we need to take out for some time, or take out period. we can't do it with the language. this is far too broad. secondly the issue that mr. heinrich brought up about hr1. presumably, all of this is designed to maintain a stockpile that's safe, secure, and reliable and more. hr1 would take 6,500 scientist, engineers out of the laboratories that are supposed to do this, and as near as i can tell, hr1 remains the policy of this house. or at least the majority of this house. so i believe my question to those who would propose the
amendment is how are you going to do it? now that you've managed to eliminate 65 6500 -- 6,500 -- of the people that ought to be here. i think we ought to reject the amendment and get on with the appropriate and proper implementation of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. i yield back my remaining time. >> gentleman yields back. recognize the gentleman from maryland, mr. bartlett for five minutes. >> thank you, there's a very interesting philosophical argument here. and i don't know that there's ever been engaged. the constitution says it's the congress' responsibility to raise and support armies. to make sures for the government and regulation of the lang and naval forces. if in our defense bill, we determine a level of armorment that we consider essential to
the protection of the united states, can the senate give this away in ratifying a treaty in which we hand over to the executive, the authority to determine the level of protection that is needed by our country? i think we have every right to assert ourselves, i don't know what we've ever been in a position of this contest. but i would think that we would want to assert ourselves to say to the world, to our citizenry, what we believe the proper level of armourment is. i would hope that we would object violently if the -- if this -- if they tried to give this away to supersede this with a treaty.
and i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. conway for five minutes. >> thank you, i yield the time to mr. lamborn. >> thank you, representative conway. just very quickly, let me reiterate what it does and doesn't do. all that the first part of the amendment does it limits funds for reductionst of the deployed weapons that are required by the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty until the secretary of defense and secretary energy jointly certify that the modernization plan is proceeding. there's nothing in there that guts or stops implementation of new s.t.a.r.t. it just says vert if i that the modernization that you said you would do it proceeding. we were talking about up to ten years from now when future administrations need to be reminded that this has to continue forward.
so it does not stop in any way new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. it requires for a joint certification. the second and third parts of the amendment, having to do with nondeployed hedge weapons or other unilateral cuts are outside of new s.t.a.r.t. this is first something that may just be someone's idea in the future. but it is not something that it on the table right now. and is not concluded in new s.t.a.r.t. whatsoever. so this has been very carefully written not to stop implementation of new s.t.a.r.t. it just puts some speed bumps in the way to make sure that people's feet are held to the fire so that the promises that are made are actually kept. that's all this amendment does. with that, i yield back. >> gentleman, i yield back as well, mr. chairman. >> that was from earlier today before the house arms services
committee. the committee expected back here live this evening at 7:15 eastern. members right now are in votes on the floor. before we hear more, update on a couple of things. in a post on twitter, republican newt gingrich announced he's running for president. you'll be able to see him live a georgia republican party convention live at 7:15 eastern on c-span. tomorrow the senate finance committee is holding a hearing on rising gas prices, chevron, shell, bp, conoco, and exxonmobil. that hearing gets under way with live coverage on c-span. we're in the room, waiting for the markup to continue. until then, debate on an amendment from the strategic forces section of the bill from earlier this afternoon. it deals with the nuclear
weapons s.t.a.r.t. treaty. >> is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment continues our efforts to codify the implementation process, that arises out of the new s.t.a.r.t. agreement. during the deliberations in the senate on new s.t.a.r.t., the senate gave direction to the president to take up the issue concerning the imbalance of nonstrategic nuclear weapons between russia and the al lice. estimates are that russia has perhaps as many as 3800 nonstrategic nuclear weapons pointed at europe that were not addressed in the new s.t.a.r.t. agreement, whereas estimates are the united states and europe has between 100 and 500 of the weapons. the senate in trying to address the issue of this imbalance recognizing that it represents a significant threat to our allies
and the united states interest asked the president if he is to go forward with any additional agreements to address this issue. this administration of responds to that direction that the president has under taken. in the nato recently in adopting a strategic concept in the november of 2010, reaffirmed that it is a nuclear alliance. and in that, of course, represented the support for the importance of the united states and nato to have a nuclear deterrent. as part of that, nato also directed that they under take a deterrence review and are concern here is the deterrence review maybe under taken without context to what it's deterring. if nato under taking this review, looks at the assets of nato and the united states a further reductions maybe proposed or under taken without
the senate's goal of achieving reductions on the part of russia. this amendment limits the reduction or consolidation or withdraw of u.s. nuclear forces from europe, unless one the host country requests the removal, or nato decided it supports the reduction, consolidation, or withdraw, and the forces in europe retain a commensurate level of insurance. :
>> i think people, if we moved weapons from the dakotas to texas, it's not tarred a -- considered a reduction, but an asset that could be moved back, so we're making a statement that if the president as a result of his direction receiving from the senate in those negotiations moves forward in negotiations with russia, that a relocation of the weapons is insufficient to be considered a reduction. now, again, this is a provision that is part of the new s.t.a.r.t. implementation act which i appreciate the chairman's support for, and, again, senator kyl is dropping
that on the senate side today. this is an important decision in that it provides some context to the administration as they move forward with that direction from the senate, and as we look to the support of our deterrence umbrella in how it supports our nato allies. with that, i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from washington for five minutes. >> thank you. i thank the ranking member as well. he's done a great job with the subcommittee working hand-in-hand working with ranking member sanchez. we have a few differences of opinion. one of these being this amendment, but overall, i do want to emphasize for the most part, we've all worked very well together on a committee to move our mark forward. with the senate in particular,
there's things i agree with, the need for a nato con consensus on any removal of nuclear weapons in europe or request for removal of tactical nuclear weapons by nato host countries certainly with a notification requirement as well. however, this amendment, i think, misconstrues the value that nato really places on tactical nuclear weapons in europe, the value nato places on it. as noted earlier i think by ms. sanchez, the concepts stated in november 2010, the guarantee of the nato allies is provided by the strategic nuclear forces of the alliance, particularly those of the united states. now, what we mean by that, right, as strategic opposed to nonstrategic or tactical nuclear
weapons. they make no message of weapons in europe. the task force on management chaired by former secretary stated that u.s.-european command along the principle sustains from its role no longer recognizing the political imperative and this is held at senior levels at u.s. com. it does, in fact, provide a credible and effective deterrent to protect the alliance. now, while countries like the baltic states and others value the role of nuclear weapons, in europe, that is tactical nuclear weapons, they are provided by the united states as is done for allies in nato, for japan, for south korea i agree that the
estimated number of russian nonstrategic nuclear weapons causes us heart burn. those concerns can be addressed, ought to be addressed. i would agree with the gentleman's assertion that regarding the geographic relocation of these nuclear weapons should not be counted as reduction, but i would also note we ought to be -- we ought to find a way and not get in the way of any administration's hands to get a geographic relocation to happen for a variety of reasons. one is to ensure that these tactical nuclear weapons are, in fact, secured within russia as opposed to where they are now. we might think they are secure, but this certainly obviously think they are dispersed, deployed throughout that
country. again, getting them in a gee graive callow cation and secured whether or not they are counted as reductions. having said that, i think again we are close on this one, but just not quite there because we are still attempting to dictate to an administration. i'm not making this about this administration or the next one, but dictate to an administration on what approaches to take as well. i think we're -- the nato strategic concept places the emphasis on a strategic deterrent, and second i just note the dod opposes this amendment as well, and so i'd ask my colleagues to oppose this knowing full well, however, that this is a subcommittee that does, in fact, continue to work well on these issues despite some differences around the edges. >> gentleman yields back.
chair now recognizes mr. wilson for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield my time to mr. turner of ohio. >> thank you. i want to thank mr. larsen for his statements about the bipartisan efforts of the subcommittee. they do significantly contribute to that. it really is, i think, a subcommittee where everybody realizes that we have a learning curve on issues and everyone rolls up their sleeves and works very dill gently. i appreciate also your characterization of this amendment because you identified the issues i think very accurately. the reason i ask for additional time is to really provide just a little more insight why this is important. i think if you put an amendment in front of this subcommittee, this committee, and ask us to support the unilateral withdrawal of the united states nuclear weapons from europe without any concessions from russia and/or without the
consent or consensus of our nato allies, that amendment would have unilateral opposition from this committee. this amendment is just the reverse. it just says since we're all opposed to that, don't do that, so if you're opposed to unilateral withdrawal of our weapons without a concession to russia, you should be for this amendment because i think that everyone would agree that that would be a bad outcome. this is a policy statement really then from this committee to the administration as they are undertaking these important negotiations to not do that, and i hope that people would support the amendment, and i appreciate chairman's support for the new implementation act from which this comes. thank you. >> gentleman yields back. chair recognizes gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i too appreciate the very
thoughtful way that chairman turner and ranking member sanchez and mr. larsen approach this. here's my objection to the amendment. if i'm wrong in my interpretation of it, i ask to be corrected. let's say that the russians agree that they're going to make a wholesale intense effort to round up lose fiscal material located in russia. they give it an urgent and high national priority. they let our people go in and help them look. there's no holds barred. they are given national priority to round up lose material in that country, and we determine that's a very, very beneficial security goal for us to achieve, and the russians come to the president, whomever that is, and say to him or her as a show good faith to make this happen for us in our domestic politics, we want you to back off some of
your nuclear arsenal in europe. that's the game we want to have. as i read this amendment, if the nato countries disagreed with that, then we couldn't do it. if our president decided a had broad support here in the country that that's a good deal for us, that we should back up some of our nook larsen arsenal in -- nuclear arsenal in western europe to gather lose material in russia, we can only accept that deal if nato has decided to support such reductions with such withdrawal. now, you can quarrel with whether or not we should accept the deal i just hypothesized, but i don't think any of us wants to delegate the decision making authority of the president of the united states or the united states congress to nato, and again, i would yield to anyone who'd care to tell me
if i've up correctly interpreted the amendment. >> mr. andrews, the expectation of these provisions are if they were the subject matter of treaty and negotiations with the senate that it would not be -- that that could proceed. the expectation here is the unilateralness of the president taking these actions and congress stepping in. >> reclaiming my time if i might, i don't think the scenario i outlines requires a treaty with the senate. frankly, if the russians agreed that they were willing to engage in that kind of active partnership with us, i think the president has legal authority to say yes right now, and i don't think it requires a treaty for us to determine that our nuclear presence in western europe will be different or less than it is right now, so if you assume there's no treaty necessary, is my conclusion right? i would yield. >> the intent of the provision
that you're referring to is that these weapons are part of the deterrence umbrella with nato, and that nato would have an active role in that decision. we don't view the weapons in europe as weapons necessary for the defense of the united states. they with weapons that are there for the defense of nato and european allies, and so that's why the provision has the intent of their engagement so we don't, in essence, have them with the rug pulled out from underneath them. >> reclaiming my time. i understand that argument, and i know it's offered in good faith. i respectfully disagree with it for the following reasons. imagine we changes troops from bases and we wanted to close bases in europe and said, well, we'll do that, but we'll only do that if nato approves the closure of the basis or withdrawal of the troops.
i don't think any of usment to restrict the decision making authority of the president or ourselves in that way. >> will the gentleman yield for a moment? >> i would, yes. >> that circumstance is different than the weapons. the troops, everyone would argue and understand are there both for our protection and for allies. the presence of these weapons as william perry said in the hearing, are absolutely there with respect to the umbrella for nato and european allies. >> i appreciate that. it's not about the weapons, but the prince pl, and the principle here is that the purview to make this decision is that 6 elected -- of elected officials in the united states and now of nato. with that, i urge a no-vote on the amendment. >> gentleman yields back. any further discussion on the amendment? mr. franks, gentleman from arizona, recognized for five minutes. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i think we find ourselves in a rather unfortunate element of the
debate here simply because the line between strategic weapons and tactical weapons is beginning to blur a little bit if you're a germany or somebody like that. if you're surrounded by russian tactical weapons that have the capability to decimate your country, the distinction between a strategic nature or tactical nature sort of doesn't matter that much to you. i think one the great weaknesses of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty is it separated those two types of weapons to the extent where america had the obvious advantage, i think most would agree related to the strategic weapons, we made the treaty based on those alone. we built down, and we are in the process of building down significantly, and we left what may be as much as a 10 to 1 disadvantage with the russians on tactical disadvantage out of the equation.
if at some point we have to debate that or enter into either whether it's a treaty or something a part of the administration, that is going to leave us at what i would call a strategic disadvantage in the debate itself, and i think this amendment tries to address that in a responsible way. there's some points that you offer i think that are worth considering for the future, but i think this amendment addresses it in an effective way, and i urge support by the members for the turner amendment. thank you, mr. chairman. >> any further discussion? gentleman from california recognized for five minutes. >> i think i have some sense of what is being attempted here, that is to maintain a strategic advantage and a nuclear deterrent, however, in reading through the language and the various sections of the amendment which is always a dangerous thing to do in debating something, it's easier
to debate it on the philosophical, but on reading through this, it appears to me that the effect of this amendment is going to have a very detrimental effect on our foreign policy, that it directs, restricts, and makes it difficult for a former member of this committee who has specific responsibility for this task to engage in negotiations and discussions with our allies in europe, some of whom may want to see a reduction in their -- the american forces that are stationed in their country. i just think that we've gone too far here with this specific language in the way in which it does restrict. i think all of you are familiar with the former member of this committee whose seat i now hold and her task is specifically this issue. if you look at it from the point
of view of what she must do in negotiating with the europeans and the russians on this set of issues, this is really restrictive, and i think, therefore, inappropriate, you know, it hay be nicer to say words we want to maintain a strategic advantage, fine, but when you get into the detail here, i know what i would do if i were her, i'd be most upset and suggest that the congress is getting into foreign policy, the specific area of the president, and i'll refer to mr. bartlett's comments about the role of this house, the congress, and the president with regard to military policy, but this is very much foreign policy so i think we ought to put this one aside and not move forward with it. i yield back the remaining amount of my time. >> gentleman yields back. any further discussion? hearing none, the question is an adoption on the amendment
adopted by mr. turner. all in favor say aye? those oppose, no. the ayes have it. >> mr. chairman? i ask for a recorder vote. >> the request for a roll-call vote, special support for that, rolling that to a later time in the debate. >> that was from earlier today. the house arms services committee reviewed defense programs for the next year section by section called marking up the bill. here's a little bit what's in legislation. a federal news radio reports that there's language in there that would allow the defense department to carry out operations in cyberspace against targets located outside the u.s. and to defend against all attacks on assets. more work on a handful of
amendments when chairman returns. they will gavel back in in about a half hour from now. it could go late into the night. more debate on the strike fighter. >> thank you, mr. chairman, a little more than two years ago, your preed -- predecessor asked us to work together on looking at efficiencies and procurement by the department of defense, and our first project we worked on was major weapons systems. together, we worked on that project, and by unanimous vote, the members committee at that time passed out a piece of legislation, passed the house by unanimous vote, and passed the senate, i believe, by near unanimous vote, and the law was signed into law by president obama in may of 2009.
the reason we embarked on that project is that in the previous seven or eight year period, the gao had told us that we had overexpended our budget on major weapons systems by nearly $300 billion, $297 billion over a seven or eight year period. had we saved that money, we could have compensated and trained and paid and supported a lot of troops for a lot of yiers, and so there was a broad consensus that we needed to change our major weapon systems acquisition strategy and the keystone of that bill was competition, was thed idea that if you have only one vender supplying a critical component of our fore structure, you are likely to have overruns, you are likely to have underperformance, and likely not to get the best deal for the service member and for the taxpayer. in the spirit of that
philosophy, we've had a long standing debate over whether we should fund the alternative engine for the joint strike fighter program, and that's a debate we've had many times in the past, and i'm sure we'll have again. this amendment is not about that question though because although i believe that the proper use of our funds here is to fund the jsf program, that's not what the bill does, and that's not what this amendment does. up stead, the vender team that is developing the alternative engyp for the jsf believings so much in the value of the product and believes in the value of competition, it has done a very rare thing. it has put its own money where the taxpayers' money usually goes. that vender team has such a belief in the merits of competition and their work, they have said that they will finance further development and testing
in this fiscal year and fy12 for the purposes of enhancing that competitive agenda. i think that is to be commended. i think that will yield the best product for our service members and best value for our taxpayers. in order to be sure that we can achieve that result, my amendment says that any of the data, any of the equipment, any element necessary to encourage further testing and development of the engine will not be prohitted or blocked by the department of defense. in other words, it says that when this vender team stepped forward and says we will put our own money and efforts into this enterprise, that those efforts are not blocked by any way that would block the use of property necessary for that testing, so i want to emphasize to my friends
both on the republican and democratic side. we've all taken a position, some of us several positions, on the issue of whether or not there should be further public investment in the testing of this alternative engine, and we feel strongly one way or the other. i believe there should be, but that's not the question this amendment proposes. the question this amendment proposes is when a vender team is willing to put its own money and its own efforts into enhancing that competitive agenda, should we permit them to do so or not? i believe the answer is a resounding yes, and i believe the benefits from this is a better product for service members, more options as our planners look at 95% of the aircraft's stock of the american military, and a better deal for the u.s. taxpayers. i respectfully urge republicans and democrats, those who oppose funding for the alternative engine and those who support it
to join together in this effort which i think furthers the agenda that we did in the major weapons system reform of 2009. i would urge a yes vote. i yield back. >> i commend the gentleman for his work on this issue. you know, at a time when every dollar seems to be more important than ever, when a company steps up and is willing to fund to keep competition as a viable alternative, i think that to me this is a no-brainer. basically, the company said we will stand behind what we're saying. we will put our own money in and the government will have no additional cost, and yet it keeps alternatives open and competition open, and i think
this is a good bipartisan amendment that the gentleman has offered. is there any further discussion on the amendment? yes? >> i'll be brief. i strongly support the effort to continue developing their joint strike fighter enjoin on their own dime at no cost, at no risk to taxpayers. we can keep competition alive. isn't that the american spirit and the american way? and we can make sure that this competition on the largest subcomponent of the joint strike fighter and on future programs can be there when we need it. this is a unique approach giving us opportunity to usher in changes to the pentgon's process. it's good for the taxpayer, competition, and ultimately and most importantly, good for the safety and security of our nation. thank you, mr. chairman.
>> thank you. chair yields to mr. bartlett for five minutes. >> thank you. the chairman's remarks includes a provision that requires the secretary of defense to carry out a plan for the reservation or preservation of property owned by the federal government acquired under the f136 propulsion system contract. this amendment requires that such a plan at no cost to the u.s. government provides support and allows use of the property by the contractors to self-fund research, development testing, evaluation, and mr. chairman, this could conceivably save the taxpayers money. because the mark requires the department to map tan this material, it is not maintained at no cost. there isn't overhead for maintaining it. depending on how one keeps record, conceivably the use of this equipment will save the taxpayers money. approximately $3 billion is
invested in research and development for 136 alternative engine. the f136 contract was recently canceled by the pentagon, but the contractors believe strongly in their een gin and stated their intent to continue through 2012 to develop the engine at no cost to the u.s. government. the 136 contractors to continue development of their enjoin, they need access to the test engines that have been developed and u.s. government test facilities, again at no cost to the government. this amendment would enable the f136 contractors to have that access. that's all it does. it could actually save the taxpayers money. i urge all the members to support this amendment. thank you, and i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? >> mr. chairman? >> recognize the gentleman from georgia, mr. scott for five minutes. >> mr. chairman, i don't object
to the amendment. i have a question, and it may be a question for the chair. the united states taxpayer already invested tremendous sums in the development of this engine. who would own the technology if this amendment passes and it goes forward? would -- would the united states -- >> would the gentleman yield? >> yes, sir. >> technology is property of the united states department of defense. >> okay. all of the technology including the new technology moving forward would all belong to the department of defense? >> yes, that is my understanding that this would be done and the intellectual property belongs to the united states department of defense. >> mr. chairman, is that your understanding as well? >> i know of no information other than what the gentleman has stated, and if any one member of staff has anything that would be contrary to that,
then i would say, mr. scott, that would be my understanding also. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back my time. >> thank you. mr. rooney from florida is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. the amendment proposed for those of us who don't share the same opinion as the subcommittee chairman or those who believe that the second engine is necessary, even just weeks after the entire house voted saying that it was not necessary for the sake of cost, when this amendment -- if it is truly to its core about cost, then i would have no objection. i don't see why anybody would. as the chairman said it seems like a no-brainer. the problem i have and continue to have is this insinuation by the subcommittee chairman that the members that believe that the cost of the second engine
was not something we could afford in this day and age that somehow we are all, as he put it quote-on-quote, "misinformed or uneducated" or a group of other words that are an insult representing constituents that are trying to save the taxpayer money, and at the same time provide the best possible defense, those of us who served in the military and those of us who believe that we should carry the biggest stick on the block believe that what we did a couple weeks ago by striking the second engine was the right thing to do and regardless of whether or not this bill advances the second engine coming back to life or not remains to be seen, and we shall see, but with regard to mr. andrews' amendment to store and have the proprior tore of the second engine fund their own
advancement, i have no objection. i yield back. >> any further discussion on the amendment? gentleman from texas. >> i too support the amendment, also support the issue of competition which is not competed. i would remind my colleague from florida that the entire house didn't vote for striking the engine. the majority did, but it was not a unanimous vote to strike that deal. >> the gentleman would yield? >> yeah, just a second. >> i apologize if i insip waited -- insinuated that. >> what the amendment does do is though it protects the system from those who champion a particular idea one way or the other from taking advantage of their positions to have a self-fulfilling prophesy that it works and that is by preventing the contractors from getting access to unique test facilities they need to get access to. this amendment does that and
protects the system from folks taking advantage of the position who disagree with the continued development of the second engine. i support this amendment and urge my colleagues to support it as well. i yield back. .. urge my colleagues to support it as well. yield back. >> gentleman from new york, mr. gibson, is recognized for five minutes. >> thanks, mr. chairman. i speak today as somebody who voted to eliminate close to $500 million for the second engine of the joint strike fighter at a time that clearly we all need to do more with less. i think what's happening here today is quite remarkable, if you think about it. action that the congress took, a tough decision, something that had been an issue for several years, certainly strong arguments on both sides, we can respect all those. but to the fact today that we have a private company that's coming forward to continue this research on their dime, the
american people get competition at no cost. so we get savings and we'll see what happens at the end of this. but this is something i can support and i'm pleased to do so. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> gentleman from tennessee, mr. cooper, is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would like to ask the author of the amendment, my friend from new jersey, mr. andrews, this question -- "fr free sounds really good. but as the gentleman from texas just pointed out, it could involve access to unique testing facilities and there's no such thing as free in that context. for example, in tennessee we have some state-of-the-art wind tunnels, and allowing that engine to be tested there for free might actually impoese othr overhead and other costs on the defense department and taxpayers that would not, in fact, be compensated. normally these facilities rent for vast sums of money. and at least one of the contractors involved in this, i
think, paid no income tax last year on $15 billion worth of profits, in fact, made $4 billion in free money -- tax givebacks from the taxpayer. so this is kind of an amazing situation. if it's free, i want it to be free. that would include covering the overhead and other koflts and the opportunity costs of using these unique and vital u.s. test facilities. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i'd be delighted. >> i appreciate the question. i think it's very well founded. and there are two specific answers. in the first. in the second line, line two of the amendment, lines one and two, it points out these activities have to ensure that the secretary at no cost to the federal government, first of all -- and i clearly intend that to mean overhead and any of the things the gentleman mentioned. and then secondly in lines five and six, the access to the property and the data is
contingent with this language, quote, if such activities are self-funded by the contractor. so i intend this to mean that every cost direct or indirect, overhead or explicit, must be born by the contractor or else the access is not granted. >> if i could reclaim my time. how would the gentleman respond to the question of testing priority? which comes first, something that the pentagon favors or something that the pentagon has already cast doubt on? some of the comments from some of my friends on the committee, it almost seems like this is a resolution of no confidence in our own pentagon, if we so distrust their opinion on things. so if you have limited test facilities and there has to be an order of test, will this company be able to jump the line and be able to get ahead of other testing priorities? >> if the gentleman will yield, there's nothing in this amendment or the base text that mr. bartlett has propounded that gives any priority in testing to
anyone. so i would interpret that as means it's entirely within the discretion of the department of defense as to who's first in line and who goes first. >> so we still trust the pentagon to make those decisions. >> well, if the gentleman would yield, yes. i mean, i would think the question of what should be tested when is a decision the department has within its prerogative. >> i thank the gentleman. i yield back the balance of my time, mr. chairman. >> is there any further discussion on the amendment? if not, the question is on adoption of the amendment offered by mr. andrews. so many as are in favor will say aye. those opposed will say no. >> mr. chairman? on that i would ask for roll call vote. >> the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. and a recorded vote has been
requested. seems there's sufficient support for roll call vote. roll call voight vote is orderedment i stated earlier that we would hold all recorded votes until the end of this, but it looks like we have everybody hereme here. so we will proceed to the roll call vote at this time. >> chairman mckeen? >> aye. >> ranking member smith? >> aye. >> mr. bartlett? >> aye. >> mr. reyes. >> no. >> mr. thorn berry? >> aye. >> ms. sanchez. >> aye. >> mr. jones. >> aye. >> mr. mcintyre. >> aye. >> mr. aiken. >> aye. >> mr. brady.
>> aye. >> mr. forbes. >> aye. >> mr. andrews. >> aye. >> mr. miller. >> aye. >> mrs. davis. >> aye. >> mr. wilson. >> aye. >> mr. long avin. >> aye. >> mr. lobe yaund dough. >> aye. >> mr. larsen. >> aye. >> mr. turner. >> aye. >> mr. cooper. >> no. >> mr. cline. >> aye. >> ms. bore die yoe. >> aye. >> mr. rogers? mr. rogers? mr. courtney? mr. courtney? mr. franks.
>> aye. >> mr. lub sack. >> aye. >> mr. schuster. >> aye. >> ms. giffords? ms. giffords? mr. conaway. >> aye. >> ms. san gas. >> aye. >> mr. lamb born. >> aye. >> ms. pingry. >> no. >> mr. wittman. >> aye. >> mr. kissel. >> aye. >> mr. hunter. >> aye. >> mr. heyne rick. >> aye. >> dr. flemming. >> aye. >> mr. owens. >> aye. >> mr. kaufman. >> aye. >> mr. gair mend di. >> aye. >> mr. rooney. >> aye.
>> mr. critz. >> aye. >> mr. plats. >> aye. >> mr. ryan. >> aye. >> mr. ridge elle. >> aye. >> mr. rupers burger. >> aye. >> mr. gibson. >> aye. >> mr. johnson. >> aye. >> mrs. hartsler. >> aye. >> mrs. castor. >> aye. >> mr. heck. >> aye. >> ms. sutton. >> aye. >> mr. schilling. >> aye. >> mrs. han bus sa. >> aye. >> mr. runyon. >> aye. >> mr. scott. >> aye. >> mr. griffin. >> aye. >> mr. pa lot sew.
5. >> the amendment is agreed to. the chair now recognizes mr. cooper for the purpose of an amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. amendment number 164, i would ask to be distributed. >> the clerk will please distribute the amendment. without objection, the reading of the amendment will be dispensed with.
>> gentleman from tennessee is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment has to do with the joint strike fighter but only the f-35b, the short takeoff and vertical landing variant of it. so in this vast program, this is a very small aspect. what the amendment would do is, the committee remembers that this year we have funded three of these and next year my amendment would propose that we fund four. now, the committee work says we should go ahead and do six. i would like to cut that back by two for a reason. it would save $380 million in money that i think could be spent for other higher
priorities. i do not do this lightly. secretary gates, among others, has been highly critical of the f-35b program. and to quote him, he says, the marines' short takeoff and vertical landing variant is experiencing significant testing problems. these issues may lead to a redesign of the aircraft structure and propulsion, changes that could add yet more weight and cost to an aircraft that has little capacity to absorb more of either. as a result, i am placing the stovl variant on the equivalent of a two-year probation. if we cannot fix this variant during this time frame and get it back on track in terms of performance, cost and schedule, then i believe it should be canceled. so instead of me being hard on the f-35b program, i think we're being generous because we're actually increasing purchasing by 33%, just not the 100% that the committee had proposed. i'm dog thing this in response
the secretary of defense's heartfelt plea that there is a fundamental problem with the vairnlt of the joint strike fighter. i would propose that the $380 million saved be spent primarily on aircraft parts and maintenance for the marines and the navy. so that it would be kept within their purview for very high priority, actively used aircraft, high up tempo aircraft that needs this help because this is an underfunded account. the navy and ma reenz have been begging for more money in this account and i think we should help them with this. and $63 million would be spent on improving the equipment for our national guard and reserve. every member on this committee knows how heartfelt the pleas are from our guard and reserve back home to have more and better equipment. so, mr. chairman, this is an important amendment. it's a small amendment in this vast defense bill. it would only change the
spending of $380 million, but it would help send a message to the contractor of the f-35b that we need to get this program back on track. it ups production, not only keep willing the production line warm, it keeps it hot, but it also helps fund other pressing needs of our navy, marines, national guard and reserve. i would ask my colleagues on the committee to accept this amendment. >> mr. chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. >> i very much respect the gentleman's work on the committee and in the congress and ever since he's been here to be a strong proponent of fiscal responsibility, and i respect that greatly. however, i must oppose this amendment on three grounds. first, reducing the request by
two f-35bs would increase the cost of the remaining four f-35bs. secondly, it would reduce the department's top line, and i would remind members that secretary of defense already reduced the future years defense program by $78 billion, of which $4 billion came from the f-35 program. and, thirdly, i oppose this amendment because it could increase the navy and marine corps strike fighter shortfall. currently the shortfall is projected to be 52 in the department of the navy in 2018 and 37 our marine corps. if these care craft are not replaced in future years, this amendment would add two more jets to the marine corps shortfall. i know the secretary put this program on a two-year probation and turned over complete
responsibility to the commandant of the marines. and i had a visit with him, and he told me that he personally is engaged in this program and that they have made great progress. i would hate to see a bump in the production line at this point. for that reason, i would then reluctantly oppose the gentleman's amendment. >> would the chairman yield for -- >> i would. >> i thank the chair marn, appreciate your kind words. i knew there was going to be a "but" in there somewhere. we can disagree without being disagreeable. it was not the intention of this amendment to in any way cut the top line of dod. all the money, all the money, every penny, is being returned to other accounts with, in my opinion, higher priorities. second, i respect the commandant very much, but it's going to take some pretty strong aeronautical engineering to correct the weight and propulsion problems of this
craft, and with all due respect to the commandant, we need things that our troops can fly, things that work. the gentleman also made the point that the cost would increase if you only buy four instead of six. well, the gentleman knows that the cost of this is already increasing every year, unlike the cost of most weapons systems that we purchase. we do not seem to be able to get value for quantity here the way we have in other weapons programs. and i would just suggest until the mechanical and engineering difficulties are worked out here and we essentially we should fly these before we buy them, investing before we test them is a highly risky strategy. i would just urge the committee to stick with the 33% i on the defense program bill now that the house armed services committee is returning from a break. members are reviewing the legislation line by line and making changes in the voting on
amendments to read the market could last late into the night. the chairman is seated and expect him to get in momentarily [inaudible conversations] ahura [inaudible conversations] members of the house armed services committee are returning to the hearing room chairman buck mckeon is there. we are waiting for the committee to gaveling.
so the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, for the purpose of offering an amendment. >> i have an amendment at the desk. >> will the clerk please pass up the amendment? without objection reading of the amendment will be dispensed with. if the judge -- gentleman will wait until they have a chance to dispense. [inaudible conversations] recognized to explain this amendment. thank you mr. chairman. this amendment is like the other
amendments a continuation of our codification of the to do list as a result of new start. this is also a provision that is in the start implementation act which i thank the chairman for his support in the co-sponsors of that bill. this provision goes to the issue of missile defense agreement. this is an issue that has arisen as a result of the new start and as everyone is aware russia has a very different view of the effect of the new start agreement upon the united states ability to deploy and to support missile defense of our homeland. the russian federation stated my was signing the start agreement if the u.s. were to engage in a qualitative or quantitative improvements to the missile defense they would view that as a treaty violation going to the extent of arguing that the treaty itself restricts the ability to deploy a missile defense.
our president takes a very different view in the letter dated december 18th, 2010 the president pledged, quote, regardless of russia's factions in this regard as long as i am president as long as the congress provides the necessary funding the united states will continue to develop and deploy e effective missile defense to protect the united states deployed forces and allies and partners. my administration to please all four phases of the european phase for the defense that of course fee is for being the one that protect the united states homeland. because this is an area that has been in dispute and with the administration now stated intention of entering into negotiations with russia concerning cooperative agreements with missile defense, we want to consistent with the president's statements codify this list with respect to the event. this amendment limits the administration from entering into any international agreements that would limit our missile defense capabilities without the approval of congress
were by treaty or statute. so this is consistent with the president's statement. it's an issue that has arisen as a result of the discussions and the approval of start. and it should ensure that as the administration goes forward with the discussions with russia we at least have a policy statement from congress that absent congressional action or treaty missile defense capability should not be restricted. with that, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. andrews is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i would raise two points of objection to the amendment. the first has to do it prerogatives of the commander in chief and the head of state. i think that the findings in this resolution are expressions of opinion but i think to make them binding in law upon the commander-in-chief is a mistake to whenever the commander is and
what of the circumstances. for example laptop peachtree, leyna, 33 nseries a finding or affirmation that any further limitations on the missile defense capability of the united states are not in the national security interest of the united states. again that an opinion members of congress are certainly free to express but to make that all of the land of the president must adhere to under all circumstances including those we don't yet know of, i think it is unwise and the second objection i have is i think the actionable clause of this amendment or redundant. on page three wind nine deutsch, the amendment says a future agreement with russia on cooperative missile defense, strategic weapons for their strategic weapons reductions or any other matter is very broad phrase commercial and put any
restrictions on the missile defense options of the united states or elsewhere so in other words there has to be in agreement, they're has to be in agreement of the congress or act of congress. this is redundant and already covered under the arms control of disarmament pact which found in section 2573 title xxii. we already have a statute that says if a president of the united states wants to obligate the country to limit or reduce the armaments the only way he or she can do so was through the treaty making power under the constitution or by affirmative legislation of the congress. now why don't really know what this amendment ads to that existing statute other than these findings which are certainly legitimate opinions but i don't think should be enshrined in to the law to tie the hand of any chief executive and commander in chief of the
united states. so i would argue that the present law, the constitution and section 2573b of the arms control disarmament at already accomplished this. if any president wanted to say that he or she wanted to limit our missile defense in any way as i read the law the only way he or she can do that is to propose the treaty to the senate or to the congress to pass a statute that would somehow ratify or approve the decision. so i would happily yield to the author of the amendment -- >> i appreciate that. with respect to the congress making the statement this language was actually taken from the senate having made that statement where they stated in a sense of the senate further limitations of the missile
defense capabilities of the united states are not in the national security interest of the united states so we are merely meurlin -- >> that reaffirms my point. the senate has no more authority to speak for the executive than we do and in training in the opinion of the senate is a mistake -- >> it's not bill law. the statement they made a statement we are meeting here it is the basis in the which we can enact a provision that says because that is our opinion and should only go through two ways. there should be no secret deals between the president and russia. can either be through the treaty or an act of congress. >> as the gentleman disagree with my control of the tools are met act? >> a staff should answer this question -- >> reclaiming my time, the question would be does the arms control disarmament act already provides the only way we could make such an agreement that
contemplated by the amendment is by statute or by the exercise treaty power is that correct >> you are talking about section 2522? >> no action shall be taken pursuant to this chapter and the disarmament or any other act of obligate the united states to limit the armed forces or armaments of the united states and any military significant matter. this i believe it is not quite the same thing -- >> how was it different? >> weather in agreement was entered into the force that is on the missile -- >> the chair recognizes the gentleman of some carolina mr. wilson for five minutes. >> thank you mr. wilson and i yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. >> i want to conclude with
certainly if the staff indicates them and that it would be redundant it certainly wouldn't be in conflict so we certainly would find that there is no reason why that provision would cause us not to do this but the staff says it does not apply. even if it did would be further argument as to why we would do this because we want to have clarity, and the clarity is with respect to missile defense and one of the reasons before i yield, and i will, the reason why we are doing this is because there's an ongoing dispute on this topic. we are not just picking this topic out of the blue we are picking a topic that is the result of the debate and the discussion on the new start. we have russian statements that are different than our own to the interpretation of a treaty that was the certified and the administration indicating they are currently in negotiations with russia on this topic, so it is timely for us to make a
statement by congress that we understand that you are currently in these negotiations and we currently understand russia has a different view than we do, and we believe that if there is any restriction is to come out of the negotiation should either be done by a statutory act or the treaty and with that i will yield. >> i don't think that you and i disagree that there is a dispute. we certainly have the right to weigh in on it. i am simply saying as i read this amendment it imposes i think a redundant obligation on the administration. and my concern is that any good lawyer, and i'm not one of them, the lawyers on there are better than i am but any good lawyer would tell you any legal phrase in the statute has some discreet meaning. it adds something or else you wouldn't put it in there twice. and i am just very concerned that by adding this, we are taking ourselves down a path we shouldn't go. i think the state of the law right now is what it should be.
the president can't make an agreement with russia or anyone else unless he exercises the treaty power under the constitution or its affirmative statute, stitchery authority from the congress. i think this amendment at best is redundant and indigenous and i would yield back to my friend. >> thank you. i'm glad on the subject matter that we agreed. that is certainly a positive on the issue of the language. obviously this was written by lawyers. the council drafted this with -- i didn't write this, they drafted this with the concept of how we can have language that captures this ongoing dispute and gives it a way to save the president from the policy basis if you were to accomplish this it should be through treaty or statute and i will yield back. estimates are there any other further debate on the amendment? if not the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. turner.
so many in favor will say aye, a post, no. the ayes have it. >> i would ask for a roll call vote. >> we will move to the time in the debate. [inaudible conversations] >> the chair recognizes mr. brooks for the purpose of an amendment. >> mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. >> and the number? >> i'm not sure, mr. chairman. was filed today. >> to 78, your first one? >> yes, sir. >> clerk, please pass out the amendment, to 78. >> without objection reading the amendment of the amendment will be dispensed with. the gentleman will suspend until
the clerk has a chance to pass out the amendment. >> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this is to the system. the amendment creates a budget item in the amount of $149.5 million. but it makes the expenditure subject to the following limitation. this section will also provide a limitation that no funds made available in fiscal year 2012 may be obligated or expended until the government
accountability office provides a report to the congress of the cost-benefit analysis between the system including the lifecycle cost for water will cost to upgrade, maintain and deploy and the analysis of the cost associated with harvesting the technology to integrate into the patriots. basically in the appropriation is contingent on our decision after the receipt of the report. now some background information is important. it's supposed to be the successor to the patriots, the same patriot that was used over two decades ago in the gulf war met and i would subject but it's better than the patriot in several respects. first 360-degree radar as opposed to the patriots' 90-degree which means with respect to the mead that you can ascertain what targets from the complete circle around wherever our military forces are stationed as opposed to patriots
limitation of only 90 degrees of radar. it's also the greater battlefield mobility. it is more efficient, requires less manpower. it is a nation partnership. our partners are germany and italy, the united states share a cost of 50%, germany is 25%, italy is 17%. america is already invested $1.5 billion germany and italy at it another $1 billion. mead research and diplomat quite frankly is very close to completion according to the march 2011 gao report, and i will quote all five of the critical technologies, launch electronics, multi function of fighter control, multi function radar fire control transmits last receive module, slipping and a sprinkling systems are
mature. in accordance, the president's budget seeks $804 million in fy 2012 and 2013 funding for the integration and testing activities. the alternative to the president's budget is to terminate the contract with h.r. 1540 as it is currently written and seeks to do. the problem with termination of the contract is that it's very costly. first we will have $2.5 billion invested in mead both by the united states of america and by germany and italy and will have no mead. second, they're our determination penalties under the contract obligations relating to this contract at $846 million. now keep in mind we are seeking in the president's budget fy 2012 and 2,013,804,000,000 common get the determination penalty is up to $846 million
hands over the next two years america has the potential to save money by fully funding for the president's request that 846 million maximum penalty cost versus the 800 million to fund it for two years. with that, i would submit that a gao report on the cost-benefit analysis and the proposed technology harvest and integration provide congress with much-needed independent information analysis on this very important issue. this would ensure the best decision is made in the future. when you're talking about $2.5 trillion that has already been spent $800 million to complete the tasks to see if meads works properly as intended i would submit that $800 million is well worth the investment in light of the potential termination costs and even greater than that roughly
$846 million. i would yield back the remainder of my time. >> did the gentleman intend to go forward with the amendment or was there some intent to withdraw? >> mr. speaker, quite frankly i am torn between going forward with it and withdrawing it. i've had some members suggested i go forward and had communications with others that suggest i would draw it having made the statement that i've made be more than happy to add here to win for suggestion the chairman may have. >> madam speaker and chairman and just couple minutes. [laughter] >> given the hour and ensure we have more debates going forward i guess if you're asking my
preference, i would like to see as much as i am in sympathy with what you're trying to do and would be good to withdraw the amendment. semidey prefer speaker or german? >> this is the best job in congress. >> mr. chairman, based on your suggestion it is my hope the senate will examine this issue more thoroughly perhaps save the potential $846 million in contract termination penalties and with that i would draw the motion. >> i thank the gentleman for withdrawing that amendment, and -- >> [inaudible conversations]
>> i now recognize again the gentleman from alabama, mr. brooks for the purpose of offering an amendment. >> mr. chairman, could you go to the next one in line so i can get my notes? here we go. >> 117. >> sorry, i had the notes mixed up with the next one. some of the clerk please pass of the amendment. without objection reading in the amendment will be dispensed with. >> the purpose of this amendment is to prohibit the transfer of the missile defense technology to russia. -- >> suspend until we have a chance to get the past out.
>> [inaudible conversations] >> the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this amendment deals with prohibiting the transfer of missile defense technology to russia and the amendment would establish a two-tier approach to missile defense technology sharing with the russian federation and out landing at perlmutter fae of the amendment would be sharing any missile defense technology including the hit to kill technology with russia. more specifically, sensitive data, sensitive technical data, warning, detection, tracking, targeting, a telemetry to manage the control and battle management data. things of that nature. the second which is what part of the sharing of the non-sensitive missile defense technology unless the administration submits the report to congress specified in first what is being chaired to the protective measures implemented, three come
any data that the russians are sharing with us, reciprocity, and any discussions between the united states and the russians on missile defense matters. in addition to that position must certify to the congress any shared technology will not be proliferated, undermines the missile defense systems and will be in an equitable exchange. the amendment builds on a bipartisan letter recently signed by 39 united states senators in april expressing the concern about giving the russian federation sensitive missile defense state and technology. it would allow cooperation and tried efforts between the u.s. and russia's long as congress is notified and measures are taken to ensure missile defense technology is not inadvertently shared. this amendment will allow the united states to continue to lead the world in missile defense technology, preserve the investment of the billions of dollars and insure the continued of the current and future missile defense technologies including hit to kill technologies.
it would prevent the other one attrition from using missile defense technology as a bargaining chip in future start or the negotiations with russia. all i had to yield the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. schuster for five minutes. >> i thank the chairman for yielding. and i don't wish to speak on this amendment, just to make a point on the amendment to the gentleman i think from alabama has withdrawn. i appreciate him withdrawing it but i think it needs to be pointed out that meads first and foremost doesn't exist. it has been a flaw the developmental process for the last 12 or 15 years. cost overrun, and again, we don't have the system that is even close to being ready to be deployed. so i think it would be foolish for us in this kind of tight
budget to spend $800 million on a proof of concept that the secretary of the army said is unlikely to be viable. so i think it's important to point out that this program is flawed. and in this bill it states that the dod, we are going to stop the funds until the dod negotiates a multilateral determination of the program of germany and italy coming and we think it can be done with spending 300 million, saving $500 million, which i think is wise in this case. again, the patriot system which has been a good system, a system that we can add technology to and my understanding is you can add the radar system so the patriot system kinsey 360 degrees. so i think with some of these new technology added to the patriot system it is wise for us to move forward and spend the money on the patriot system that is a proven system and a system that is deployed and can be
improved. so i appreciate gentleman from alabama withdrawing his amendment. i hope the senate doesn't get it back in there because i think would be a waste of $500 million to the taxpayers. with that, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentle lady from california, ms. sanchez. >> thank you. our side will accept the amendment. >> i commend you on your brevity. is there further debate on the amendment? hearing none, the question is on the adoption of the amendment offered by mr. brooks so many are in favor would say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. this time the chair recognizes mr. aiken for the purpose of presenting an amendment.
>> i would like to offer an amendment to wondered for. please pass of the amendment. without objection reading the amendment will be dispensed with please suspend until they have the amendment passed out. the gentleman is recognized to explain his amendment. >> thank you. my understanding, this is an area of air force budget in hypersonic and it's known, and
it's been an experimental program that's been going for a number of years called conventional prompt global strike. the idea is that we would be able to strike a target with a conventional weapon within 60 minutes trying to get there in a hurry and drop the ordinance. now, this program because of was developed kind of experimentally has never really been bid for competition although the air force says they're going to submit for the competitive bid this hasn't been done. we talked about this last year of the same time and we are told there would be a competitive bid and there still isn't anything. so what my amendment does is says the money for this program, half of it is going to be held until such time as the pentagon comes up with three things. first of all, the results of the johns hopkins physics lab
studies that analyzes the options for the cp g yes. that's the conventional global strike since the first thing. just to release the study from the lab. second, the explanation of how competitively award process would be used for all future cpgs or get less, the report on the htb2 test flight feel your the program did suffer a test flight failure we simply want that information published we are not taking money out, we're simply saying they can take half of what's in here but before they take it all we have to have the result from the pentagon and explain what they're doing. this is mr. chairman keeping with a number of things we have done where we felt the pentagon has been less than straightforward with us and telling us what is their plan and being very specific and developing requirements.
so this would very much follow that pattern, and i would be willing to take any questions if people are interested. >> the gentleman yields backend recognizes the gentle lady from california, ms. sanchez. >> thank you. i'd like to express the opposition to my colleague's amendment. the global strike program i believe is an extremely valuable capability that provides the deterrence against the high-value targets. the program provides the ability to strike against the targets with conventional weapons in an hour and the program has great support from the air force and the navy. my colleague's amendment would restrict 50% of the funding for the program. this would restrict important art and the capability to provide defense and measures to defeat terrorists and act on a timely intelligence. it's part of the nuclear posture review and it has enjoyed broad republican support. including because, in
particular, the context of the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty. this amendment i believe is unnecessary, i think it is going to undermine and complement -- complicate the near-term efforts to develop the technology, and - and the frustration that my colleague has. we spoke about this earlier, he and i, this whole issue of trying to get the report and the understanding about how the process has worked. and i would like to assure him that i would work very hard from our end to make sure this report is delivered, that we actually see it. i would be more than willing to work with him to take information from the department because it's important to have this information. however i believe that sending off 50% will throw off the schedule of the project for this
coming year. and so i would respectfully ask my colleagues to vote again on this amendment >> discussion of the amendment. some of the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner. >> i just had a conversation as we began this debate. i oppose the amendment. i do believe though as ranking member sanchez has just said, this appears to be an issue where an inquiry might be appropriate but perhaps legislation if not necessary. all i would be very glad to join with him on a letter of inquiry or even the subcommittee holding additional inquiry to this issue so he can get the answers that he is seeking. it would probably be the more appropriate waivers is taking action against the program and at that time we could determine
if the answers are sufficient. we did address this problem and there are some languages that does go to perhaps some of the issue he's concerned with, but not the actual bid process which we would be glad to support getting additional information for. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. thornberry. >> i have been seeing a lot of projects like the and one of the things we have consistently done working with the neediest to require before we go spending a lot of money we have the requirements laid down. we just had an experience trying to get the pentagon to give us information. this is the program we've been
trying to get information on for some time. this is a program where there is one source developing the program. it's had a checkered background. why don't we want to competitively bid everything that we do? i've been in a flexible on that on our subcommittee on the naval sea power we are going to have competitive bidding because we want a good industrial base, we won the best bank for the dollar that we can. here's a program that's only got one person working on the contract. it's all going through one vendor. why don't we want to get competitive bidding? don't understand that. we are not saying that it's not a good program although you are talking about i guess $500 million to drop a bomb on somebody. but still, none the less all we are saying is explain first of all what happened on this test flight, and particularly explain how are we going to proceed with competitive bidding?
is that asking too much of the pentagon? i don't think so. is it extreme to ask them to tell us what you're going to do? we should be doing more of that and if anybody else's experience has been like mine it's like pulling teeth sometimes to get them to be forthcoming with some straightforward information. and this is all we are doing is just letting them know we want this information. now what is wrong with asking for how were you going to competitively bid something? how is that a big threat or is it we are trying to protect a single vendor? i don't think we should do that. we need to ask for the information. our job is oversight. let's do it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. the chair recognizes the ranking member mr. smith for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i yield my time to ms. sanchez. >> thank you to the ranking member for the time. again, i would be willing to work with you, mr. aiken,
because i think it is important we get this information. and there have been times when i've asked for information and i have been stymied about issues sometimes years but we were finally able to get the information. i think chairman turner and i have discussed this, and we would be willing to work together through the committee process to ensure that we get the information about the competitive bid process coming up about that -- and about that path. >> could you yield for the second? >> yes. >> i heard you say that the first time, and i don't have any doubt that he would do everything in your power to get the information. the problem is i tried to do everything in my power to get information out of the pentagon in a lot of times we don't get it. so it's not your good faith effort that i question. it's whether or not you're going to be forthcoming with the information. i wanted to clarify. >> reclaiming my time. again, i think that this is a better handle from the committee standpoint, and i would be willing to work with you to get
that done and i believe chairman has also said that and i would -- the problem with this is that we are wycherley are taking the number and sending it off and when we take a look especially of the schedule what it takes to get this done, he thinks that member adversely impacts and makes the program cost even more. from my standpoint when i look at the numbers come so i would prefer to try to get this in an -- >> would you yield? >> from the committee. >> on that same point, we talked about this earlier. we have 50 per cent of our year. we offered use 75% said you could spend 75% of the money before the pentagon has to give the information and use it you didn't like that idea. i'm willing to talk to any number you want. i just want some help to pin them down and make sure the pentagon will get the information other than us talking yourselves blue and they
ignore us. >> reclaiming my time and yielding back. >> the gentleman yields peery islamic let me ask the gentleman it sounds like both the chairman and the ranking member for willing to work with you. i don't know how to vote on these if we want to move forward at this time. but we will be on the floor in a week. if you're willing and they are willing yet, is their something you think could be worked out to bring this to a conclusion on the floor that you could be happy with? ..